They were ok, certainly nothing to shout about, I mean we heralded atherton as a hero for havin an average of 38! Nowadays you wouldnt get a lookin with that, certainly overated imho.

Bull****.

1, had Atherton played at the current time he'd probably have averaged 45-50. If Matthew Hayden can average nearly 50 Atherton certainly could. Had Andrew Strauss and Marcus Trescothick faced the calibre of bowling and catching on show in the 1990s they'd probably struggle to average 30.

2, Atherton is a perfect example of why judging someone on the banal ledger of overall-average is so utterly stupid. His average is not an accurate reflection of his career. He was brought in prematurely, slipped a bit towards the end of his career, and had 2 series which meant absolutely nothing as he was playing half-fit. Knock-out these series (and it's utterly fair to do so, because they're meaningless as far as the vast majority of his career is concerned) and he averaged 41.55 from 97 Tests, which is STILL as good as Trescothick (not including Bangladesh games) even though the standard of bowling and catching Trescothick has faced bears no resemblance whatsoever to that which Atherton did.

Considering one off tests or not, being bottom is being bottom, we still played those one off tests and lost.. not the iccs fault!

Err, it's the fault of those stupid enough to organise and count one-off Tests as series (not ICC, combination of the ECB and Wisden).

New ideas: well id start by keeping them in a closed environment, no girlfriends wives around them 24/7. Spend more time playing cricket! which is definitely part of fletchers decision - (he had input on the lets only play a couple of mickey mouse games before the ashes idea)- hes being too soft on them, Stop giving people chances - like mahmood who i know you dont rate. Tell people like pietersen where to bat i mean hes good but come on he cant be commanding the coach to put him where he likes! Play monty in every game.

Well that would be a start, but overall he needs to get less chummy with them i reckon, let them know its a bloody priveledge to play for their country and any more whinging about "weve bowled 200 overs on this tour and we're knackered" and the like mentality should be rewarded with the boot.

Great ideas, let's really **** the players off by forcing them to do stuff they feel uncomfortable with, let's bowl them into the ground, let's create even more stress-fractures and wear-and-tear injuries. Let's ignore the fact that cricket is difficult enough to interweave with relationships and break-up every single marriage in the English game... make cricket completely into a bachelors' game... seriously, you should read this.

Playing Monty in every game won't make as much impact as some would like to believe. Best fingerspinner in The World he may be, but he's still a fingerspinner, and as such can NEVER be a miracle-worker.

I'd be interested to know how much you were ranting about the presence of wives and girlfriends when we were winning in South Africa in 2004\05, for example...

Great ideas, let's really **** the players off by forcing them to do stuff they feel uncomfortable with, let's bowl them into the ground, let's create even more stress-fractures and wear-and-tear injuries. Let's ignore the fact that cricket is difficult enough to interweave with relationships and break-up every single marriage in the English game... make cricket completely into a bachelors' game... seriously, you should read this.

Playing Monty in every game won't make as much impact as some would like to believe. Best fingerspinner in The World he may be, but he's still a fingerspinner, and as such can NEVER be a miracle-worker.

I'd be interested to know how much you were ranting about the presence of wives and girlfriends when we were winning in South Africa in 2004\05, for example...

Im sure the rate of break ups hasnt changed much in cricketing circles since the advent of the whole bring the kitchen sink ethos...
Playing monty might not make a massive difference, but its the right thing to do.
There are far too many distractions and beating a poor sa side 2 years ago makes little difference (theyve been on the slide for a while)

Yes lets make them realise as with any career - you have to make sacrifices, turn them into men for god sake, lets not pander to their every whim - i can understand that pay has increased in the last decade or so - as it should - the current pay is probably about right - but that should not mean that they have the right to use the ecbs money to bring along london zoo. God knows how much money has been spent where it could have been used benefitting the game over here.

1, had Atherton played at the current time he'd probably have averaged 45-50. If Matthew Hayden can average nearly 50 Atherton certainly could. Had Andrew Strauss and Marcus Trescothick faced the calibre of bowling and catching on show in the 1990s they'd probably struggle to average 30.

2, Atherton is a perfect example of why judging someone on the banal ledger of overall-average is so utterly stupid. His average is not an accurate reflection of his career. He was brought in prematurely, slipped a bit towards the end of his career, and had 2 series which meant absolutely nothing as he was playing half-fit. Knock-out these series (and it's utterly fair to do so, because they're meaningless as far as the vast majority of his career is concerned) and he averaged 41.55 from 97 Tests, which is STILL as good as Trescothick (not including Bangladesh games) even though the standard of bowling and catching Trescothick has faced bears no resemblance whatsoever to that which Atherton did.

Err, it's the fault of those stupid enough to organise and count one-off Tests as series (not ICC, combination of the ECB and Wisden).

That's totally different to losing a series.

Still think hes overated. Fair enough some of the pitches were a little more bowler friendly - and their were some better attacks, but comparing him to some of the others of the day - thorpe , stewart etc who get far less credit than atherton and they average a good 10&#37; more as far as i recall.Did atherton play zimbabwe? shouldnt you factor out those games aswell?
Noone could convince me that that load of losers and defeatists are better than the side of the last few years - at their peak.

As far as the one off tests go, if a side is good enough to defeat us in one - fair enough i mean if you fcator out those games what sort of difference does it make really? might we have nudged ahead of zim? GREAT

Im sure the rate of break ups hasnt changed much in cricketing circles since the advent of the whole bring the kitchen sink ethos...

The rate of break-ups has increased massively (faster even than the broader increase in society in general), and quite what you mean by "the whole kitchen sink ethos" I'm not sure.

Playing monty might not make a massive difference, but its the right thing to do.

Right thing to do, yes, but it WOULD NOT, no chance whatsoever, have made a difference to the result, and therefore you can't blame the loss on DF because of that.

There are far too many distractions and beating a poor sa side 2 years ago makes little difference (theyve been on the slide for a while)

It makes a lot of difference, as you'd have seen had you watched that series that for the most part they were anything but poor. Nor is it by any means the only one - since the "no wives, no kids" nonsense of 1996\97 English players have generally had families on tour and there've been plenty of successes in that time.

Yes lets make them realise as with any career - you have to make sacrifices, turn them into men for god sake, lets not pander to their every whim - i can understand that pay has increased in the last decade or so - as it should - the current pay is probably about right - but that should not mean that they have the right to use the ecbs money to bring along london zoo. God knows how much money has been spent where it could have been used benefitting the game over here.

So you'd be willing to sacrifice a relationship for the sake of playing cricket for your country?

I can assure you you're in a small minority there - most people have their priorities straighter. I'd give one hell of a lot to play for England were I good enough but my ladyfriend is not one of them.

Still think hes overated. Fair enough some of the pitches were a little more bowler friendly - and their were some better attacks, but comparing him to some of the others of the day - thorpe , stewart etc who get far less credit than atherton and they average a good 10&#37; more as far as i recall.

Where do you get that idea? Most people credit Thorpe as England's best batsman of the past 14 years and Pietersen has a hell of a lot to do yet to surpass him (only Bell of the rest of the current crop also has a chance IMO), while virtually anyone will tell you that Stewart 1996-2002\03 was easily the best wicketkeeper-batsman England have ever had.

Atherton was, however, one hell of a good opening batsman for the vast majority of his career - only when half-fit (or less) and at the end when he went downhill (like so many) did he ever look less than that. And given the bowling and pitches he often faced in his day, that's quite some achievement. And anyone who rates Trescothick and Strauss ahead of him just because their overall averages are 3 or 4 runs higher and were lucky enough to play in a team that won quite a lot doesn't really know what they're on about.

Did atherton play zimbabwe? shouldnt you factor out those games aswell?

I did - Zimbabwe (who were quite Test class in those days) were one of the series where he played half-fit (if even that), so I knocked them out. I included them in 2000, though, because he was fit then.

Noone could convince me that that load of losers and defeatists are better than the side of the last few years - at their peak.

I'd love you to go up to any of them and tell them that they were defeatists. That's an utter insult to their integrity.

As far as the one off tests go, if a side is good enough to defeat us in one - fair enough i mean if you fcator out those games what sort of difference does it make really? might we have nudged ahead of zim? GREAT

It would indeed have been great, because then we wouldn't have this "England were the worst side in The World" nonsense that we've had pretty much ever since then. Even the Championship's creator, Matthew Engel, said "even we wouldn't go so far as to claim this meant England were anything other than the worst-performing of the 9 Test nations".

Indeed, of course, I'd argue that little good can come of changing coach at all, but surely the week (something like that) between Australia tour and World Cup invites chaos?

TBF your ODI team has been rubbish for a while so would it make much difference? I don't mean to be patronising/insulting in that context (and I know you would agree that some of the players picked should never have been called up in the first place).

Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

Originally Posted by Boobidy

Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

I'd love you to go up to any of them and tell them that they were defeatists. That's an utter insult to their integrity.

Enormous over-reaction for mine. Defeatism isn't an issue concerning ethics or integrity. The scorecards remain - regardless of first-chance averages, luck, Ealham's non-selection or otherwise - telling of England's success rate of the 1990s, which was undeniably dross. England lost many of their Tests prior to their recent resurgence because of a culture and a mindset that had been drummed into them via numerous Ashes beatings, numerous West Indian drubbings and the British press (more than any other). The 'gallant loser' ideal that was put up by the fourth estate gave the cricketers - never mind the tennis players, badmintoners or Olympic athletes - nothing to aspire to. As soon as defeat was lifted from being demeaning to expected, England's Test side could expect selfsame results, brilliant - yet isolated - individual performances to win the odd Test notwithstanding.

The massive over-reaction that came with the 2005 Ashes win and the reversion to the "same 'ol" this summer is a case in point.

It's a perfectly fair statement to make. If sporting attitudes overlap onto integrity, as you seem to be purporting, then you've got your priorities tragically wrong.

Last edited by LongHopCassidy; 14-01-2007 at 11:58 PM.

"The Australian cricket captain is the Prime Minister Australia wishes it had. Steve Waugh is that man, Michael Clarke is not." - Jarrod Kimber

Enormous over-reaction for mine. Defeatism isn't an issue concerning ethics or integrity. The scorecards remain - regardless of first-chance averages, luck, Ealham's non-selection or otherwise - telling of England's success rate of the 1990s, which was undeniably dross. England lost many of their Tests prior to their recent resurgence because of a culture and a mindset that had been drummed into them via numerous Ashes beatings, numerous West Indian drubbings and the British press (more than any other). The 'gallant loser' ideal that was put up by the fourth estate gave the cricketers - never mind the tennis players, badmintoners or Olympic athletes - nothing to aspire to. As soon as defeat was lifted from being demeaning to expected, England's Test side could expect selfsame results, brilliant - yet isolated - individual performances to win the odd Test notwithstanding.

The massive over-reaction that came with the 2005 Ashes win and the reversion to the "same 'ol" this summer is a case in point.

It's a perfectly fair statement to make. If sporting attitudes overlap onto integrity, as you seem to be purporting, then you've got your priorities tragically wrong.

Exactly! if you asked them if they were defeatists of course theyd say no. Its just the whole ethos of the england team back then was defeatist. They were a very poor team. You can make a side look worse than they are using those tables, but do you see aus going down to ninth at any time? You cant make a good side look bad, but you can make an average side look it.
Wins were the exception rather than the rule and that has changed in the last few years, unfortunately the last year has been a disaster.

So you'd be willing to sacrifice a relationship for the sake of playing cricket for your country?

I can assure you you're in a small minority there - most people have their priorities straighter. I'd give one hell of a lot to play for England were I good enough but my ladyfriend is not one of them.

Yes. Its a small window of opportunity. You retire at 35 ish with a load of money and can have a relationship then. Playing for your country has to be the ultimate. Boycott would agree with me lol!

The rate of break-ups has increased massively (faster even than the broader increase in society in general), and quite what you mean by "the whole kitchen sink ethos" I'm not sure.

Wheres your source for that?
The kitchen sink ethos is the idea of bringing everything on tour. theres a trend in society where people need to have everything with them all the time... the "i want it now" attitude. Lol, that works well in this context